AFFIDAVIT

I, Ramanathasa, S/o Gopalappa, Aged about 67

years, Residing at Gopal Krishna Lodge, Opposite Roopavani
Talkies, Santepete, Chitradurga, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:

1. I submit that, I am Defendant No. 7 in this case and

defendants 4 to 6 and 8 to 13 have authorized and
instructed me to submit this affidavit on their behalf also. I
know the facts of the case.

2. I submit that, the plaintiffs and defendants belong to

Hindu Undivided Family. Plaintiffs and Defendants are the
descendants of Gopalappa. Late Gopalappa had 2 wives
namely Nagubai and Bhagubai. Late Nagubai is the first
wife of Gopalappa. Late Gopalappa and late Smt Nagubai
married in the year 1926. Late Gopalappa and late Smt
Nagubai had one son i.e., Hanumanthsa who is the father of
plaintiffs 1 to 4, defendants 20 to 22 and late Smt
Pancharathna who is the mother of defendants 16 to 19.
Late Smt Bhagubai is the second wife of late Sri Gopalappa.
Late Gopalappa and late Smt Bhagubai had 10 children i.e.,
Defendants 1 to 8 and the father of defendants 9 to 13 and
mother of Defendants 14 to 15.

3. It is an admitted fact that late Sri Gopalappa had two

wives. Late Gopalappa got married to late Smt Bhagubai in
the year 1928. when there was no codified law and bigamy
practices were prevailing in the pre independence era.
Merely because late Smt Bhagubai was the second wife of
late Sri Gopalappa it does not amount to a void marriage
and the legitimacy of their children cannot be questioned.
The children of late Smt Bhagubai are entitled to legitimate
share in the suit schedule property.

4. I submit that, Plaintiffs have not disclosed about the

case in O.S No. 193/2012 before the learned III Additional
Civil Judge Chitradurga. The suit was filed by Defendants 1
to 3 for partition and separate possession, the said suit
came to to be partly decreed. An Appeal was filed by
Defendants 1 to 3 in R.A No. 15/2017 before the learned II
Additional Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga. The Appeal
came to be partly allowed and the Defendants 1 to 3 were
entitled to equal share in the suit schedule property i.e.,
1/11th share in the schedule property. Certified copies of
the judgment and decree is produced for the kind perusal of
this Hon’ble Court.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 had deliberately not made plaintiffs

and the deceased mother of Defendants 16 to 19 parties in
the aforestated suit and in the appeal. They had stated in
their pleadings that Defendants 20 to 22 were the only
children of late Hanumathsa had. Defendants 1 to 3 have
mislead the Hon’ble Court and have got order in the
absence of necessary parties in the suit. The Plaintiffs ought
to have taken steps to come on record by impleading
themselves either in O.S No. 193/2012 and R.A No.
15/2017 during the pendency of the case.

6. I submit that, plaintiffs have unnecessarily made

defendants No. 4 to 13. parties to this case as their claims
are vested only in 1 share of the suit schedule property i.e.,
the share which late Sri Hanumathsa is entitled to.

7. I submit that, Defendants 4 to 13 are not necessary

parties and defendants 4 to 13 have no interest in
contesting the case as we are not necessary parties to the
suit and we do not have any objection with regard to the
claim of the plaintiffs share in the suit schedule property.

8. I submit that, the defendants 4 to 13 are not making

any attempts to alienate the suit schedule property. The
plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned this aspect of the matter
and have wrongly obtained temporary injunction in this
regard.
9. I submit that, this Hon’ble court may kindly pleased
to drop defendants 4 to 13 from the proceedings of the suit
for the aforestated reasons and not pass any such order
against defendants 4 to 13 in respect of their legitimate
share in the suit schedule property which they are legally
entitled as per law.

Identified by me,

ADVOCATE DEPONENT
Place: Chitradurga
Date: /04/2021